"...then conquer we must..." -- The Star Spangled Banner

When Osama bin Laden said he didn't know who was responsible for the
September 11, 2001 attacks in America, except it was "one of America's
many enemies", I decided to look into who those enemies might be, and
the sources of their grievances. I can now see why America might have many enemies. Over a
period of 50+ years, the CIA has interfered in the internal affairs
of over 50 countries, including assassinating their politicians, funding
war machines such as Al-Qaida ("the database"), Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini, running
drugs, manufacturing news, and carefully nurturing American business interests.

This is "neo-colonialism", the latest incarnation of a habit practised
by American and European imperialists since around 1400 and the time of
Christopher Columbus. Since then, the land and natural resources have
been systematically stolen from the native peoples of the Americas,
Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Australia - of the entire planet. In
addition, many of these people have been murdered, through a combination
of conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear warfare, and terrorist
attacks. The rest have essentially been enslaved and forced to live in
"the system" that was then built around them.

In 1920, Winston Churchill advocated the use of mustard gas on errant
"tribes" who didn't pay their taxes. Their towns were bombed with
mustard gas... Churchill wrote that the bombs should "spread a lively
terror" - the purpose of the English bombs was to create fear.

In 1983, the USS New Jersey killed thousands of civilians
after it bombarded mountains in retaliation for the loss of 263 marines
in Beiruit. During Vietnam, the USA dropped VX nerve gas on Vietcong
troops and used chemical weapons such as Agent Orange.
During World War II, the USA firebombed 67 Japanese cities, before dropping atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
killing approximately 1 million innocent civilians. The USA continues to use cluster bombs, white phosphorous, and depleted uranium weapons;
these technologies are all known for their extensive harmful side-effects ("collateral damage").

Check out that gutless mother-killer in the mask. If these people are so proud of what they are doing, why are they too scared to show their faces?

do you have this man's blood on YOUR hands?

terror in the west

After World War II, the CIA secretly helped 30000 SS and Gestapo agents escape Germany for safe havens. Many
relocated to the USA and started work for the CIA instead - the CIA claimed they needed German intelligence to beat the coming "communist threat".

But this threat is indeed itself just another Hegellian construction.
Hegel was a social philosopher at the University of Berlin in the mid-
1800's. Hegel suggested that society could be controlled by immersing
it in "constant conflict". If the populace feels threatened then it is
more pliant, less argumentative, easier to bully. Hegel suggested that
if the people feel vulnerable, then the government can present itself
as their protector, and then pass laws and commit acts it would not
otherwise have been able to.

Modern governments have the means, the motive, and
the capability to fabricate threats. It might be possible for a corrupt government, through a combination of propaganda and covert (unseen) activity, to make it seem that a threat is real. The benefit in fabricating the threat
is that a corrupt government need not wait for an actual threat before it
passes those laws and commits those acts. A bonus for government, corrupt or otherwise, and irrespective of whether the threats they identify are real or not,
is that the threats ensure that politicians and bureaucrats have a job. They
often are able to create new layers of bureaucracy, which means they get more responsibility and more pay.

After the end of World War I, the military-industrial complex needed a new enemy, or defence spending would fall... bring on
Hitler and the Nazis - who were funded by the same military-industrial
complex.

After the end of World War II, the military-industrial complex again needed a new
enemy, or defence spending would fall... bring on the Soviets - who were
funded by the same military-industrial complex.

After the end of the cold war, the military-industrial complex needed a
new enemy, or defence spending would fall... bring on the war on drugs,
and now the war on terrorism - both of whom have received funding by the
same military-industrial complex.

No doubt a portion of each of these threats was real - there's no doubt however
that a portion of each threat was exaggerated, overblown, distorted and
over-inflated, either by propaganda or by covert action, by our own governments
for their own purposes.

In the 21st century a new motivator has emerged: oil, or rather, the lack of it.

Olmert and his gangsters have placed themselves - and increasingly, Bush and Blair -
in an extremely unenviable position. For if the rule of law is to be upheld, and to avoid
sending the message that genocide is a permitted activity, then an example must be made of
these men. If this is not done, it will be a green light for any nation or group to unilaterally
attack another, to wantonly violate the Geneva Conventions and many other commonly accepted
principles such as the presumption of innocence and habeas corpus. In time the view will
form that permitting these acts to go unpunished is in fact inciting terrorism - that to
prevent further violence, and for the sake of national security and world peace, justice must be done, and must be seen to be done. And that is
when the axe will fall on the necks of these mutinous bullies.

We've been here before: "The lawlessness of the Court of Star Chamber under Charles I far exceeded that under any of his predecessors. Under Charles' reign, defendants were regularly hauled before the Court without indictment, due process of the law, right to confront witnesses, and their testimonies were routinely extracted by the King and his courtiers through extensive torture ... Charles was subsequently tried, convicted and executed for high treason and "other high crimes" [and misdemeanours] ... his head [was] held up and exhibited to the crowd ... Parliament was reinstated in 1659." -- [Wiki]

We don't behead our traitors anymore, we throw them in jail for 25 years instead.

link: The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy: "In this paper, John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago's Department of Political Science and Stephen M.Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government contend that the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy is its intimate relationship with Israel. The authors argue that although often justified as reflecting shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, the U.S. commitment to Israel is due primarily to the activities of the "Israel Lobby." This paper goes on to describe the various activities that pro-Israel groups have undertaken in order to shift U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction."

That the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel's most recent crimes against humanity speaks volumes for its commitment to justice.

a call to call a spade a spade

When people speak of America doing this, or Britain doing that, they are generalising. The people of these countries are most likely as opposed to the actions their governments are taking as you or I. Rather than being whole countries acting as one, as the mainstream media might have you believe, what we have instead is a small international cartel. They aren't Americans. They aren't British. They work for themselves. They represent nobody but themselves. And compared to the 6 billion of the rest of us, they are very, very small in number.

My government doesn't represent me anymore, and I don't care to have it associated with my name. It doesn't speak for me. *I* speak for me. These webpages speak for me. And I am like every other little guy swimming around hoping to hell he doesn't get nuked. They speak for nobody but themselves. Let history show that these crimes against humanity are committed in the name of the people, yet they are not committed BY the people.

America attacking Iraq might really be seen as a bunch of greedy oil barons attempting to shore up their crumbling resource base. I don't resent Americans, per se; rather it is the oil barons most worthy of contempt. Unfortunately, they and their "friends and colleagues" are in control of America, and they are authorised to speak and act in the name of America.

"My incompetence is this big!"

"I believe secretary Rumsfeld hasn't done an adequate job. He should go." - General Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there." - retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division.

"I think we need a fresh start … We need leadership up there (the Pentagon) that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them." - Maj. Gen. John Batiste, commander 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, 2004-2005

"We won't get fooled again … Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach should be replaced." - Marines Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations of Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2000-2002

"The problem is that we've wasted three years … absolutely, Rumsfeld should resign." - Marines Gen. Anthony Zinni, former chief of U.S. Central Command

"A lot of them [other generals] are hugely frustrated. Rumsfeld gave the impression that military advice was neither required nor desired" in the planning for the Iraq war. - Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, former commander of Marines forces in the Pacific Theater

"Everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out. [Rumsfeld and his advisers have] made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict." - Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs

link: Rummy's Diaries - "An archive of information on human rights abuses, prisoner abuse, and torture committed by the Coalition of the Willing in the Global War on Terror."

consequences

That the oil barons attempt to pass their actions off as a "war on terror" behind a see-through smokescreen of lies, propaganda and covert action betrays the true nature of the beast. When the "Oilmongers" say it's in the interests of US National Security to attack [insert name of token terrorist/CIA operative/oil-rich nation], they're telling the truth, but perhaps not as you might expect. America is heavily dependent upon oil, which, as we all know, is going to run out completely sometime this century. I guess they want to be the last left standing. Alone, in a bombed-out, greenhoused world - what a great way to die.

Hmm? Oh, they'll die. We live in a global economy. 30% of the world's shoes come from one province in China. Instead of investing in a sustainable future, America is desperately clutching onto the very technologies that led it to the abyss. Monopolising scarce resources is simply prolonging what is inevitable. Fighting over them first - well, that's just wasting resources and bringing finality a little closer. It's all really quite pathetic. Look what the humans do when their back is against the wall. They fight each other over increasingly small bits of nothing! Stupid creatures. If they had just figured out they could work together to fix their problem, they wouldn't all be dead.

Meanwhile, energy research goes underfunded - imagine what might happen if the money spent on the "War on Terror" - reportedly USD 330bn by February 2006 - was instead spent on, say, superconductor or fusion research.

In addition, the US' annual defence budget is around USD 500bn (that's per year) - again, the foolishness of spending all this money every year on things that destroy rather than create is astounding in proportion.

So it must be concluded that the greatest threat to world peace at this time is the United States of America; that its reckless, selfish and by definition, futile pursuit of non-renewable resources is impeding and undermining the development of sustainable energy; and that consequently, it is endangering the lives of every human on the planet.

Anyone who dares defend these actions has this blood on their hands as well.

Update 2006: In January's State of the Union speech, Bush stated that America was "addicted to oil" and pledged to increase funding for clean energy research. It obviously took him five years to find this page. Not to worry, mate, pull up a chair ...

No, there is a limitless supply of potential terrorists, there always has been, and there
always will be. The timelessness of the tactics of terror ensure they will outlast any
regime or indeed any civilisation, including our own.

3. Peace can be assured by force.

No, this approach not only contradicts Einstein, who said that "peace cannot be kept by force,
but can only be achieved through understanding", but is so morally bankrupt, so hypocritical,
and so manifestly unjust, that it can never hope to gain the support it needs for legitimacy.

No, liberals, by definition, founded and developed the egalitarian, freedom-loving liberal democracies
that our societies have become. These ideas might be frightening to the neo-conquistadors, however.